[kldaace]

I'm going to wait for more replication before I adjust my priors too much on this. It seems plausible prima facie, but I'm suspicious of their methodology. From the article (I don't have access to the working paper), it sounds like they might have been trying to test the significance of a lot of different variables, and this might just be the one that popped up.

[maxerickson]

If you have "priors" that you can adjust, that suggests you think you are an explicit Bayesian reasoner.

It's incoherent to take on that identity and then ignore new information. You should just conjure probabilities from this incident that will have an acceptably low impact on your priors.

[kldaace]

I'm not ignoring new information, I'm just saying my priors are strong enough and the evidence is weak enough that this won't make me change my beliefs "too much."